Sigma 70 - 300mm lens

Grimspoon

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
8,855
I see game have this lens on special for R1499 which seems like a decent price.

Does anyone have feedback or advice on this lens?

I currently have a Nikon D3100 and its pain having to switch the 2 lenses around all the time.

Would this lens be a suitable replacement for my 2 lenses? I have the standard 34 - 55mm and the 55 - 200mm (I think thats them).

Thanks :)
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
21
Well, you probably have the 18 - 55mm and 55 - 200mm kit lenses. The 70-300mm is not really a replacement for what you have, as it only starts at 70mm, where your first lens starts at 18mm. But it does give you the extra reach to 300mm. But you would still need to use your 18 - 55mm lense.

Also the Sigma has a bad f stop, starting at f4 at 70mm up till f6.5 fully zoomed.

It also depends on what you shoot?
 

floydthebarber71

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
147
Do you mean the 18-55mm lens? A 70-300 won't replace that (of course), and I don't think that sigma will replace your 55-200 either. That lens is quite capable. Unless you need 300mm. But then you're going to need some decent support as things will get shaky at 300mm.

I've got the Nikon 70-300 VR. It's superb. The VR really helps at the telephoto end (and generally in lower light) plus it's got amazing optics. If you shopped around you could find one second hand between R3000-R3500. There is also the standard Nikon 70-300 but it doesn't have VR and the optics aren't as good. I would keep using that 18-55 as well. I use mine a lot and it's great.

If you want an all-in-one lens then look around for an 18-200mm. I know the Nikon version can be a bit pricey, not sure about the Sigma counterpart. You could then recover a bit of the cost by selling your current lenses although you won't get too much..
 

Grimspoon

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
8,855
Well, you probably have the 18 - 55mm and 55 - 200mm kit lenses. The 70-300mm is not really a replacement for what you have, as it only starts at 70mm, where your first lens starts at 18mm. But it does give you the extra reach to 300mm. But you would still need to use your 18 - 55mm lense.

Also the Sigma has a bad f stop, starting at f4 at 70mm up till f6.5 fully zoomed.

It also depends on what you shoot?

Sorry, thats right I have that lens kit.

I guess doesn't really replace it. I am a bit of a noob so please forgive me.

I shoot just about anything but mostly my kids.
 

Grimspoon

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
8,855
Do you mean the 18-55mm lens? A 70-300 won't replace that (of course), and I don't think that sigma will replace your 55-200 either. That lens is quite capable. Unless you need 300mm. But then you're going to need some decent support as things will get shaky at 300mm.

I've got the Nikon 70-300 VR. It's superb. The VR really helps at the telephoto end (and generally in lower light) plus it's got amazing optics. If you shopped around you could find one second hand between R3000-R3500. There is also the standard Nikon 70-300 but it doesn't have VR and the optics aren't as good. I would keep using that 18-55 as well. I use mine a lot and it's great.

If you want an all-in-one lens then look around for an 18-200mm. I know the Nikon version can be a bit pricey, not sure about the Sigma counterpart. You could then recover a bit of the cost by selling your current lenses although you won't get too much..



Thanks for the feedback. It all makes a bit more sense now.

I think a 18 - 200 would be a good idea. I also wouldn't mind getting a wide angle lens at some point.
 

floydthebarber71

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
147
The 18-200 sounds good for your needs. It'll be a worthy investment although just remember it's also a bit bulkier and heavier than your current arrangement. I'd suggest you go into a shop and try out the lens for yourself.
 

bwana

MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
89,382
Save up for the excellent - and this is coming from a canon guy - Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S.
 

GTi

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Messages
3,826
Save up for the excellent - and this is coming from a canon guy - Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S.

I wouldn't advise this lens, I had it and hated it, not great optical quality, you be better off with the 18-200 VR II or even better the Nikon 70 - 300mm which I own and love. Anyone considering a super zoom should be aware of the fact that any such lens is full of compromises to achieve the huge focal range. This is, unfortunately, especially true for the Nikon AF-S 28-300 VR
 
Last edited:

bwana

MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
89,382
I wouldn't advise this this, I had it and hated it, not great optical quality, you be better off with the 18-200 VR II or even better the Nikon 70 - 300mm which I own and love. Anyone considering a super zoom should be aware of the fact that any such lens is full of compromises to achieve the huge focal range. This is, unfortunately, especially true for the Nikon AF-S 28-300 VR
Interesting - yours is the first negative comment I've ever heard about that lens - everyone else gives it very high marks.
 

floydthebarber71

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
147
I've heard good things about that lens as well, although at almost R10,000 it's probably heading well out of budget and doesn't cover the 18-55mm range too. Where do you draw the line :)

The 18-200 is not cheap either. Grimspoon, your 18-55 and 55-200 lenses are good quality. Whether the option to combine it in one lens and have VR is worth R7000 is up to you.
 

bwana

MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
89,382
4 out of 5 star review?
Conclusion

The Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR exceeded our expectations (which, admittedly, weren't very high given that this is a superzoom lens after all). Its sharpness, while not on a par with the best lenses we have reviewed, is actually pretty good. It never hurts to stop the lens down a bit, but the usable aperture range is actually quite broad at most focal lengths. This means that in the sharpness department, you are not paying too high a price for the convenience of having a single lens to cover such a vast range of focal lengths. The Nikon 28-300mm VR also handles chromatic aberrations well, with only limited purple fringing appearing along contrasty edges. In terms of optical performance, there are really only two areas of concern: corner shading (especially wide open at 28mm and 300mm), and geometric distortion (barrelling at 28mm, which turns into strong pincushioning before you reach 50mm and remains visible throughout the rest of the zoom range, as evidenced in a number of our sample images). There is also some very noticeable focus breathing at 300mm, although I would not call that an optical defect.

Mechanically, the lens is as good as you would expect based on the asking price: zooming is smooth without the zoom ring being too loose, manual focus is easy, and the auto-focus motor is silent. Vibration Reduction works, allowing you to take hand-held shots at shutter speeds that would be critically slow for the focal length used. Build quality is on a par with most recent Nikkors and there's even a rubber gasket around the lens mount for a degree of dust protection.

So, who is this lens for? Any FX camera user who does not like to change lenses or simply likes the experience of going swiftly from wide angle to long telephoto. It's also a great companion for a number of film bodies, including the Nikon F65, F75, F80, F100, F5 and F6 – out of these we only tried it on an old F65, but it worked well (including AF and VR) except for some focus issues in low light. The 28-300mm VR is not the ideal choice for DX users though, who are better served by the smaller, lighter and cheaper 18-200mm VR.
Seems mostly positive to me.
 

GTi

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Messages
3,826
You did indeed but that was after I posted my remarks. ;)

Well that remakes are not going to convince me to get any other, I'm couldn't be happier with the cheaper 70- 300mm.
It's an awesome bang for your bucks.
 

floydthebarber71

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
147
Yep, I got my 70-300 VR for R3500 and use it together with my 18-55 kit lens, best bang for buck indeed. Awesome quality. There is nothing wrong with that 55-200 either, I'd use one if I had one. I think the point was he wants an all-in-one lens which the 70-300 isn't anyway.

If the OP was enquiring about a R1500 lens, I can't see the 28-300 being a realistic consideration for him but who knows.
 
Last edited:

GTi

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Messages
3,826
Here are some used Canon lenses for sale.

* Canon EF 70-200mm 1:4 L IS USM Ultrasonic lens + hood @ R8000

* Canon EF 17-40mm 1:4 L USM Ultrasonic lens @ R5000

* Canon EF Extender 2X MKI @ R1500

* Canon EF Extender 2X MKII (AS NEW IN BOX) @ R2200

* Canon EF 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM Ultrasonic lens @ R3500

* Canon EF 28-135mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS Ultrasonic lens @ R2700

* Canon EF 55-200mm 1:4.5-5.6 II USM Ultrasonic lens @ R1500

* Canon EF 80-200mm 1:4.5-5.6 II lens @ R1200

* Canon EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III USM Ultrasonic lens @ R1400

* Canon EFS 55-250mm 1:4-5.6 IS lens @ R1700

" ALL LENSES IN EXCELLENT CONDITION "

CONTACT : 0847908169
Thornton, Cape Town, South Africa
 

bwana

MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
89,382
I take it you're familiar with the seller?
 
Top